When Things Go Right - Insurance restoration company

Jun 14, 2019

The fire spread so quickly that the men stopped their suppression efforts and called 911. It started when an employee for this medium-sized sawmill was welding on equipment inside the mill’s main processing building. He had followed normal procedures, including wetting down the area, but piles of sawdust and debris from the log debarking process— soaked with oil and grease leaked from equipment overhead—had caught fire nonetheless. Fires in mills happen all the time, but in this situation employees inadvertently dispersed the burning debris—sending the fire up a cable chase, rapidly spreading it throughout the building.

The first fire engine arrived within six minutes of the 911 call. By then, the fire was so intense, with smoke billowing into the sky, that the firefighters called for air support and focused on keeping the flames from spreading to nearby log decks and stacks of finished lumber. Two air tankers bombed the main processing building with retardant, and a helicopter scooped water out of an adjacent lagoon to make water drops.The building was a total loss, a charred ruin of twisted metal that had collapsed into itself. Fortunately, the rest of the facility was spared.

The site required extensive demolition and cleanup, but large wood processing machinery also needed to be removed. Much of it was salvageable, so removal had to be accomplished without further damage in an environment where heavy debris had collapsed on and around it.

After weeks of negotiations with the insurer, the restoration contractor was finally able to start work. First, environmental hazards had to be assessed and mitigated before the demo work could start. Asbestos was found in one small room, which was quarantined and quickly cleaned by an abatement team. The nearby lagoon had to be protected from runoff generated when years of accumulated industrial sludge were powerwashed off the floors.

The greatest safety concerns were electrical hazards, fall hazards and line of fire hazards.While some elevated work could be performed from aerial lifts, much of the work required climbing on debris and equipment, and on upper-level decking.

Planning for Safe Work

First, the safety manager required written verification from the sawmill’s management that all equipment and building electrical had been de-energized. Lockout/tagout procedures were documented and reviewed with employees prior to beginning demolition. Hard hats, safety glasses, and gloves were a 100 percent personal protective equipment (PPE) requirement; and dust mask and hearing protection were recommended. Only trained employees were allowed to operate aerial equipment or work at elevations above six feet; and fall protection was 100 percent required at elevations above six feet. Also, all work above six feet had to be pre-planned and approved by company supervisors. Daily pre-work meetings were held, where all hazards were identified and recommended safe work procedures were reviewed with affected employees. Site-specific job orientation was required for all new employees, who were required to sign written documentation. Hot work permits were filled out and approved by company safety personnel prior to performing any spark-producing activity.

Most of the fall protection issues were caused by leading edge conditions and holes created after machinery had been craned out. In many of the cases, the equipment was large (25 ft. x 15 ft., for example), projecting up through the second level of the building. Removing this equipment left holes in upper-level platforms; and no work could be performed within six feet of an edge or hole without a barrier or fall protection (and a good plan). When a company creates a hazard, it has a special responsibility to protect workers, as well as extra liability in the event of an injury.

Obviously, fall protection PPE was in place while removing machinery that penetrated any elevated surfaces. There were plenty of large H-beams to tie off from, so the company used wire rope retractable fall protection. Afterwards, barriers were installed around every opening with railing sections fabricated by welding a 11/2-inch in diameter pipe onto flat steel plates six feet on center; and threaded with 3/8-inch wire rope at 21 and 42 inches. Caution flags were hung every two feet.

Line of fire hazards existed wherever gravity or the sudden release of tension could cause injury or death. Piles of interwoven steel had to be removed, and any time one piece is moved it can generate energy by falling or causing other pieces to fall. Total situational awareness is mandatory. Obviously, powered equipment was used wherever possible, but in the effort to minimize damage to salvageable machinery, hand work was necessary to cut the equipment free.

On more than one occasion, the safety manager stopped work to require a written job hazard analysis before continuing. The priority given to safety on this project meant that every task was assessed and planned before action was taken, changing the protocol from thoughtless routine to thoughtful caution. Every day was the first day, an acknowledgement that hazards evolve; that unknowns exist.

This could only have happened in a restoration company with a strong commitment to safety rules and procedures. Management had an absolute commitment to a safe workplace. The crew was engaged during safety training, toolbox talks and daily hazard identification; and they were proactive whenever they saw unsafe activity.

There were only two near-misses and a cut requiring a Band-Aid…a complicated, high-risk demo job with zero OSHA recordable incidents. That didn’t happen by accident.

Read Next - Connecting the Dots: Safety and Profitability

You might also like

28 Oct, 2021
When a subcontractor is having trouble completing its subcontract work, it is not uncommon for a contractor to assert itself more directly into the completion process to help expedite the work. What’s the harm you might ask? A recent Loudoun County, Virginia case answered that question: It could lead to tortious interference with contract and conspiracy claims by the subcontractor. That case was Evans Construction Services (the subcontractor) versus Ox Builders (the contractor), and it also included a claim by the subcontractor against the contractor’s site superintendent, Lawler, as a co-defendant in the case individually. Evans alleged that Ox and Lawler tortuously interfered with Evan’s subcontracts by dealing directly with the subcontractors and directing the subcontractors’ work, cutting Evans out of the picture. Evans sought to recover its lost profits. Ox and Lawler argued against liability because Evans’ claims sought redress outside of Evans’ subcontracts with Ox and because Evans had no contract with Lawler at all, moving to dismiss Evans’ lawsuit as a matter of law. The court denied that motion, holding that the facts as pled by Evans were legally sufficient if ultimately proven by Evans, to support a claim for breach of legal duties separate from duties arising contractually only; and specifically for wrongful interference with Evans’ subcontracts and Evans’ related conspiracy claim against the defendants. Although the court acknowledged that Evans’ claims were interrelated with the Ox – Evans subcontracts underlying the parties’ relationship, those common facts could support both contractual and non-contractual breach claims in certain circumstances. The court further determined that such circumstances, if ultimately proven, included Evans’ claims that Ox and Lawler violated their independent common law duties to not interfere with Evans’ lower tier subcontracts and not conspire together to injure Evans in its business. The court, therefore, allowed Evans’ claims to proceed to trial on their merits. The defendants apparently did not argue to dismiss the conspiracy claim on the basis Lawler, as an employee of Ox, could not conspire with Ox, his employer (referred to as the intercorporate immunity doctrine), or at least that defense was not discussed in the court’s decision. But, regardless, this decision reflects the necessity for caution “going around” subcontractors when subcontract disputes arise. Author: Neil S. Lowenstein Source: https://vanblacklaw.com/construction/contractor-takeover-leads-to-tortious-interference-with-contract-and-conspiracy-claims/
21 Oct, 2021
In the construction industry, where multiple companies working closely together abound and where it is more difficult to monitor employee behavior because many employees are in the field, more incidents of inappropriate behavior occur. Texas and California, two states opposite politically and in law making, have instituted legislation expanding sex harassment protections for employees in the workplace that go even further than federal protections. Indeed, both laws have similarities. Texas and California Similarities In Texas , as of September 1, 2021, under expanded protections against sexual harassment, individuals in management and companies that have even only one employee can be held liable. In the construction industry, this expansion could sweep many subcontractors and tradesmen under the new law. The new law will challenge the definition of who is a manager. In California, under the 2019 law, an employer may be liable for acts of nonemployees concerning any type of harassment (not just sex harassment) against employees and other nonemployees working as interns or volunteers and service contractors. In Texas, the new law increases the time limit to file a sex harassment charge from 180 days to 300 days, making it consistent with federal law. Similarly, in California, an employee has up to 10 years to file a civil action for sexual assault or attempted sexual assault, or within three years after an employee discovers an injury or illness as a result of the assault or attempted assault, whichever is later. In Texas, instead of requiring supervisors to “take prompt remedial measures,” individual liability will hang on whether supervisors “knew or should have known” about the sex harassment in the workplace. The new law also requires “immediate and appropriate corrective action.” Certainly, the standard of “knew or should have known” will be case-specific and fact-intensive, making it difficult to dismiss cases before they reach trial. In California, recent amendments to the Fair Employment and Housing Act have made it easier for employees to prevail in sex harassment actions. They also lowered the employee’s burden and standard of proof.  Implications What does this mean for employers of all sizes? More frequent training, updating sex harassment policies and employee handbooks, expansion of human resources departments to respond more quickly to complaints, and a closer evaluation of what constitutes a managerial position are required. In California, recent legislation requires training for even the smallest of employers (a minimum of five employees). As of January 2020, California imposed minimum time requirements for the length of such training for supervisors and other employees. To be sure, in the multi-employer setting, companies also may need to verify that other companies they work alongside have sex harassment policies, that they conduct periodic training, and that their employee handbooks have been updated to comply with the law. Author: Victor N. Corpuz Source: https://www.jacksonlewis.com/publication/new-sex-harassment-laws-making-strange-bedfellows-construction-industry
OSHA inspection, CONSTRUCTION Management
13 Oct, 2021
During an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspection, the OSHA official, escorted by management, will tour the facility or construction site to observe working conditions, identify violations, and so on.
More Posts

Book a Service Today

Share by: